laid down rule in Alabama

2004In Healey v. Babbitt, 14 R.I. loc. cit. 534, it is said: “ ‘In Hughes v. Providence & Worcester Railroad Co., 2 R.I. 493, 512 , this court laid down the rule governing the construction of deeds in cases of lands bounded on highways in the following language, namely: “This court ha[s] repeatedly ruled, and it may now be considered the settled policy of the state, that where a deed bounds the grantee to, by, or on, a highway, ... the presumption of law is, that the grantee takes the fee of the soil to the center of the highway ... if the grantor, at the time, owned the fee to the center, subject

2004And see, also, Tingley Bros. v. City of Providence, 8 R.I. 493, 506 .

1983This Court laid down the rule in Ray v. Midfield Park, Inc., 293 Ala. 609 , 308 So.2d 686 (1975), stating: "When a movant makes a motion for summary judgment, the burden is upon him to show that there is no genuine issue of a material fact left in the case." Williams filed suit against Tuscumbia on May 5, 1981.

1983This Court laid down the rule in Ray v. Midfield Park, Inc., 293 Ala. 609 , 308 So.2d 686 (1975), stating: "When a movant makes a motion for summary judgment, the burden is upon him to show that there is no genuine issue of a material fact left in the case." Williams filed suit against Tuscumbia on May 5, 1981.

1966In the often cited case of Cobb v. Malone & Collins, 92 Ala. 630 , 9 So. 738 , this court laid down the rule for granting new trials, which, in part is as follows: “ . . .

1966In the often cited case of Cobb v. Malone & Collins, 92 Ala. 630 , 9 So. 738 , this court laid down the rule for granting new trials, which, in part is as follows: ". . .

1934In the case of Nichols v. Comptroller, 4 Stew. & P. 154 , page 157, the court laid down this rule, saying: “ « * * It is conceded that no money can be drawn from the treasury, but in pursuance of an appropriation made by law, but it is not necessary, that there should be an act passed annually, for the appropriation: if there is a general law, fixing the salary, requiring it to be paid at the treasury, annually or quarter annually, this is sufficient.” This was followed in Riggs v. Brewer, 64 Ala. 282 .

1934In the case of Nichols v. Comptroller, 4 Stew. & P. 154 , page 157, the court laid down this rule, saying: “ « * * It is conceded that no money can be drawn from the treasury, but in pursuance of an appropriation made by law, but it is not necessary, that there should be an act passed annually, for the appropriation: if there is a general law, fixing the salary, requiring it to be paid at the treasury, annually or quarter annually, this is sufficient.” This was followed in Riggs v. Brewer, 64 Ala. 282 .

1927Such, indeed, is the doctrine of this court as laid down in Andrews v. Frierson, 144 Ala. 470, 477 , 39 So. 512 , National Surety Co. v. Citizens, etc., Co., 201 Ala. 456, 459 , 78 So. 834 , and other cases.

1927Such, indeed, is the doctrine of this court as laid down in Andrews v. Frierson, 144 Ala. 470, 477 , 39 So. 512 , National Surety Co. v. Citizens, etc., Co., 201 Ala. 456, 459 , 78 So. 834 , and other cases.

1927Such, indeed, is the doctrine of this court as laid down in Andrews v. Frierson, 144 Ala. 470, 477 , 39 So. 512 , National Surety Co. v. Citizens, etc., Co., 201 Ala. 456, 459 , 78 So. 834 , and other cases.

1927Such, indeed, is the doctrine of this court as laid down in Andrews v. Frierson, 144 Ala. 470, 477 , 39 So. 512 , National Surety Co. v. Citizens, etc., Co., 201 Ala. 456, 459 , 78 So. 834 , and other cases.

1880In Ex parte McAnally, 58 Ala. 495 , this court laid down the rule, in cases like the present, in the following language: “ It is a safe rule to refuse bail in all cases, when a judge would sustain a capital conviction, if pronounced by a jury, on the evidence before him.” This language was quoted and approved from Com. v. Keeper of Prison, 2 Ashm. 227, and has been followed in this court in the later cases of Ex parte Allen, 55 Ala. 258 ; Ex parte Weaver, Ib. 250; Ex parte Nettles, 58 Ala. 268 .

1880In Ex parte McAnally, 58 Ala. 495 , this court laid down the rule, in cases like the present, in the following language: “ It is a safe rule to refuse bail in all cases, when a judge would sustain a capital conviction, if pronounced by a jury, on the evidence before him.” This language was quoted and approved from Com. v. Keeper of Prison, 2 Ashm. 227, and has been followed in this court in the later cases of Ex parte Allen, 55 Ala. 258 ; Ex parte Weaver, Ib. 250; Ex parte Nettles, 58 Ala. 268 .

1877In Dickinson v. Lewis, 34 Ala. 638 , this court laid down a rule, which we think entirely sound.

1857We are satisfied with the rule expressed, and hold that, in all such cases, the character in which a plaintiff sues must be determined by the cause of action he describes in his declaration, rather than the descriptive words employed in the caption. — See Chapman v. Spence, 22 Ala. 688 .

1857In the case of Tate v. Shackelford, supra, this court laid down the rule, that “the character in which a party sues must be determined, not from the description of himself which he gives in the caption of the declaration, but from the body of the pleading.” That suit was commenced before the Code went into operation, and under the law as it then existed.